The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-01-05

subjects OF copyright It was not alleged
! IN the bill that the complainant was the
inventor OF any new system or compila-
ton. On these grounds it was contended
that the injunction should not issue at
this stage. Moreover, it was not shown
that complainant had complied with the
requirements OF the law in regard to
copyright. The allegation of the affidavit
that the annual alleged to have been
copyrighted in 1880 had been dedicated
to the public for several consecutive
years by previous publication, disclosed
an element of doubt as to whether it
could be SO protected. At all events the
title was in dispute, and Mr.. Hatch con-
tended, citing several authorities in sup
port Of his argument, that the Court
should wait until the legal title to the
copyright had been settled before grant
ing an Injunction Even if the almanac
for 1886 infringed the copyright, that
would not warrant an injunction re-
straining the publication for 1887, as the
two works were so widely different. The
bill showed no great diligence on the part
of complainant in applying for a remedy
to his grievance, as the work complained
of was in the third year OF its publication
in 1886 The titles of the two works,
''The Hawaiian Almanac and Annual"
and ''The Honolulu Almanac and Direc-
tory" were essentially different, the
only similarity being in the word cal
manac," and the contents were substan-
italy different Counsel, in resisting
the motion, relied upon the vaguent IS of
the bill and on the fact that the legal
title OF the complainant to the copyright
was not beyond dispute. Mr.. Hatch
cited several authorities in support OF the
various points of his argument.
Mr.. Thurston thought that counsel had
covered more ground than was necess airy
at this preliminary hearing. What con-
stituted an infringement was not the
question before the Court at that stage.
The object OF the Court was to ascertain
whether a prima facie case had been
made out which would warrant pre-
liminary injunction being issued. The
Court had heard the bill of complaint
and the affidavit of the respondent,
Creighton. Whatever the latter did not
deny was tacitly admitted. The bill al
legged that the copyright was obtained
according to law, and although the aft
davit denied any legal copyright, that
was an inference for the Court afterwards.
AS long as it were clearly stated before
the Court now, the complainant was en-
titled to a preliminary injunction. The
strongest point of the other side was
that the legal title was in dispute. Ac-
cording to an authority quoted by coun
sci, that was point which could not be
claimed Another averment in the affi-
davit was denial of any infringement.
That could not be SWORD to; it was an
inference of law. The compliments
ri 3hts were based upon the statutes;
therefore it was claimed that any person
living here could take out copyright
in accordance with its requirements.
The question whether he had dedicated
it or not did not arise at that hearing.
1t was said that there was no special
copyright for 1886, but the allegation of
the bill was that that of 1880 was still in
existence. The second point was that
the bill did not set forth any particulars.
He submitted that the law did not re-
quire this. 1t was contended that only
the original articles could be copyrighted.
He was prepared tc answer that, but it
was not germane to this issue. Mr..
Creighton had a perfect right to go to
the Custom House, obtain statistics
from that source and publish them; but
he could not take them from complain
ants book and publish them. 1t was
not claimed that Mr.. Thrum had the ex-
elusive right to publish these statistics,
but if anyone else wished to publish
them they must go and get them for
themselves If all the work in the de-
PENDANTS book were original the MSS. |
should be produced. All authorities
agreed that an infringement of copy
right did not necessarily mean a YER
batim copy. Counsel had pointed out
the difference in the titles of the two
works. They, however, did not rely
upon the title, but upon the contents.
1t was not claimed that there was any
infringement of copyright till 1886. He
contended that defendant had not shown
any sufficient cause why preliminary
injunction should not be issued.
Mr. Hatch denied that a mere prima
facie case was all that was necessary to
obtain a preliminary injunction, and
quoted authorities in support of that
position.
His Honor granted the injunction, as
it appeared to him that the title of the
work was a colorado imitation, and
might lead people to believe it was the
same work. The complainant must be
responsible for damages in case his posi-
ton should not be sustained.
Counsel for the respondent applied for
a bond of $4,000, which was taken ex-
caDtiOr1 to nv tho Othor SiJo nc Io;,c. -,